The Stupid Files

Friday, October 24, 2014

Sometimes people wonder why I'm so grumpy about crap that ends up on Facebook or the news or whatever. This is why:

Today, YOU personally will read more information than a man in the middles ages would have come across in his lifetime. I am saying "man" for a reason: a woman in the middle ages would have had about 1/10 the access to information of that man.

Read that again: TODAY alone, you will have access to more information than a man from the middle ages had in his ENTIRE LIFE.

You will also have the INSTANT ability to corroborate what you read by doing an internet search, which will give you access to more information than 500 people in the middle ages would have had in their lifetimes.

If that weren't already enough, if you have a smart phone, and 80 percent of us have, you have IN YOUR HANDS, more computing power than was used to launch a spacecraft and land two men on the moon.

With that phone, you can speak to experts, who will also corroborate information for you.

On top of all that, TODAY, as you sit there in your bathrobe at your computer, you have, via Coursera, access to more educational options than people had for 1000s of years - for FREE!

So yeah, it makes me grumpy when people can't spell simple words, when they share ridiculous, unfounded, stupid, false, manufactured information. And yeah, it makes me crazy when people not only share that information, they REFUSE - via not reading, not researching, and by rejecting FACTS - to learn and to update what they know.

It is the highest form of taking for granted the wondrous universe of information we have at our fingertips, to post and repost garbage, and to not corroborate and verify.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Six years ago, a man contacted me after having found me on the web - he was looking for a product I was selling at the time and found me via a search, but was not looking for me specifically.

I met him and his wife once and it became clear my product wasn't a fit. For some reason, he added me on Facebook. No big deal. A couple years later, he asked if he could put his then 17 year-old, who was writing a book, in touch with me; yes, fine, although not sure at all what I could do to help, as I've never written a book - ok, I have, this blog, but it hasn't been published.

I have not spoken to the child, who is now an adult, since although we were also "friends" on Facebook. No contact at all for I think four years. Until tonight.

I am more than happy to engage in honest debate. I like it a lot. Honest is the operative word here.

This person said they wanted to engage in a theological debate. What I discovered was they had no intention of debating and - I'm speculating now, but based on some pretty decent evidence - that they were challenged by someone at their church to find someone and "tell them about Jesus."

This person has recently discovered "god," as a result of being engaged to a christian, and, as happens, is SUPER EXCITED about the whole finding god thing and REALLY WANTS TO SHARE the experience. Except doing that with an identified (grumpy, old) atheist was not the best place to start.

As always, these conversations are long, but I will do you, dear reader, the favour of putting in bold the salient places where it is obvious the "debater," is drowning. I've corrected my spelling/grammar errors - I hope all, but probably not, and I've left those made by the other writer, because to some extent they make a point about this person's education. Limited

Have fun.

DE

I know we haven't spoken in a very long time. I was
just curious..you're religious, yes? I'm in search of someone to have a
theological debate with..if you're interested

ME

Was. Very atheist now. (THIS is where this person might have disengaged)

DEMight I ask why? (This is when I should have known I was a project and this was not going to be a "theological debate.")

ME

Because religions are illogical, based on no evidence
and are not historically, archaeologically, or scientifically supported.

DE

Well science usually goes against religion. (and cue church-infused bias) And as for
the rest..all it took for me was a prayer and faith (and cue church-infused rhetoric). When people say the bible
contradicts itself, I doubt the apostles sat down to compare notes **(and cue this person knows NOTHING about biblical history or chronology).

ME

Probably the best way to understand all this is to
analyse why other religions are not correct. For instance, why doesn't hinduism
or taoism or islam work for you?

ME

Tell me what "faith" means to you. (This is where I should have disengaged. This person not only didn't answer this, they got to refusing to answer.)

To your point above, you're absolutely right, ** the
apostles did not and could not have sat down to compare notes. Matthew was
written by several - many, actually - unknown writers about sixty years after
the time frame it references. Mark is also a compilation of writings by various
writers, many unknown, and dates something like 125 years after the time frame
referenced.

Same for Luke and John. Not surprisingly, those gospels do not
agree with each other. Particularly, two of them do not mention "virgin
mary." Also specifically, two of them do not consider "jesus" as
a messiah. But more importantly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever
such a person lived.

There are variously 12 to 15 writers quoted to
substantiate "christ," but not one of them was alive at the time and
none of them actually does mention such a person, let alone corroborate.

This blog post deals specifically with all of these writers. The writer/owner of
this blog is extremely knowledgeable about the subject of religion generally
and specifically christianity, its myths and origins

A couple of interesting points: DNA, and particularly
mitochondrial DNA essentially holds all human information. MDNA is the means by
which ancestry is traced. It is highly accurate. Where we're talking about
"Adam and Eve," mDNA is a critical detail. Two things; all creation
myths have an original couple of some description and the descriptions are
mostly similar.

The existence of a creation myth in all religious stories is
evidence of people trying to make sense of things they had no means to
understand not of a fact. Where mDNA is concerned, however, if Adam/Eve were a
true story, all humans would HAVE to have a shared marker. Not only that, they
would also have to have a shared marker for "Noah's" wife - given the
mythical floods. We humans do not, however, share mDNA on that scale.

So this
poses a dilemma. In the biblical story, Adam bites into an apple offered him by
his partner and such is the reason for the fall. Two problems arise from this:
If "god is all knowing and created all things," then such a god would
know its creation would fail; in that sense, punishing an underling for
something you not only put in their way but which you know in advance will
cause them to fail, is psychopathic.

Let's carry on, however. As DNA - mDNA in particular
provides us irrefutable proof adam/eve did not exist, then we have no original
sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need for a 'saviour.' As such,
the necessity for christ is negated. Finally, there's a biological dilemma that
cannot be got around. I hope we will agree spirits and angels and gods are not
understood to have genes and DNA - if they did, they would necessarily be
human. With the "virgin" story, there can only be two logical conclusions.

Human females require X and Y chromosomes to produce male children. Human
females always contribute X. It is not out of the question a human female could
- by a very, very long stretch - asexually reproduce. However, that would
necessarily produce a female child. If we stick to the story of
"Mary" having been made pregnant by a spirit or angel, we must assume
that spirit or angel didn't have the means of providing a Y chromosome. Or, if
it did, it was human, and the whole "virgin" thing goes out the
window, as does the idea such a conception could result in a son of
"god." The bible does, by the way, very much contradict itself on
this point, when it mentions Jesus was a descendant of the royal house of Kind
David...

Now we have also the dilemmas of essentially
impossible stories. Take Noah: it seems bizarre that a "perfect
being" such as "god" could manage to create such imperfect being
as humans, and having foreknoweldge of how fallible such beings would be,
eventually gets into such a rage it/he decides to drown nearly every one of its
creations and start over.

To do this, it chooses a very, very ancient man - 600
years old - and his also ancient wife and sons, tasks them with building a
massive boat, despite they have absolutely no experience doing so, so could not
have possibily known how to acquire the right type of wood (which, incidentally
could not have grown in the area described) dry it properly - and in reality
such drying takes years - hew the wood, construct a water-tight vessel, stock
it with 14,000 animals, conservatively, and all the food they'd require -
including meat for the carnivores - keep them healthy, watered (because a
world-wide flood would cause salt and fresh water to mix, and hence poison
these animals) and keep abreast of all the literal poo that would have piled up
several times a day.

It is, to be blunt, an outrageous story. But, on the very
off chance such a think could have happened, we still have the dilemma of how
such an old man travelled to places he likely did not know existed, acquire
animals like Koalas and kangaroos and iguanas, get them back to his small area
of the middle east, and keep them from dying on the way AND keep them alive for
a year AND place them back where he found them - AND somehow, by what magic,
see them fed from a planet that was flooded for a year and then mate. It's
preposterous.

Or consider the story of the jews having wandered for
40 years. This also has absolutely no support at all. Start with the area this
is said to have occurred in being about the size of the city of Calgary within its city
limits. If such an area were mountainous, perhaps a small tribe of people could
hide for that long, but they certainly could not be lost for that long. The
logical approach is to wonder where they got food and goods - because what they
had with them MUST have worn out at points.

But archaeologically, this story
cannot be true. Even if a tribe of people never made contact with anyone for 40
years, they would have had to dispose of various things as they moved about:
earthenware, animal bones, human bones, clothing, etc. If that clothing were
made from the sheep they might have had with them (drawing on the very real and
very nomadic Bedouin people) there would be remnants of that clothing, and of
tents. But no, there is not a scrap of physical evidence of any tribe having
wandered.

Given the land area where this is said to have
happened is so small and was, even at the time, surrounded with populated
places - Iran in particular, which was very progressive and modern at the time
- there is no real possibility such a group managed to avoid other humans. They
might have been lost but others weren't and the area was a well-used trade
route. Someone would have stumbled on them or their stuff at some point.

So, we can prove scientifically the Adam Eve story
cannot be true and we can prove both scientifically and by logic the Noah story
cannot be true, and we can show via archaeology the wandering tribe story is
also not true and we have eliminated the possibility the saviour is necessary,
let alone real.

Beyond all that, we DO have masses and masses of irrefutable
evidence evolution is a fact. It is undeniable and the only real way to deny it
is to ignore facts. We also have masses and masses of verified, observable facts
proving there was a "big bang," one being the still-audible universal
hiss, in addition to measurable, viewable microwaves (not the kind from a
kitchen appliance, by the way) that essentially lead us literally to the point
of this bang. The fact the human body, indeed everything in us and on us and on
this planet - is made of exactly the same materials found in space, is also
undeniable evidence we are, as the excellent and brilliant Dr. DeGrasse Tyson
says, literally stardust.

To your point that "science usually goes against religion," that's not exactly correct. Science has shown things proposed
by religion are not, and in many cases cannot be true, but that's not
"going against," which implies a battle of some type. In reality,
science does what it does: it makes and observation, develops a hypothesis,
test and tests and tests, and then retests many more times, to develop a
theory, and then that theory is put to the test to see if it stands or not. In
short, science always, by definition, seeks to disprove itself. Religion,
conversely is very, very resistant to being tested, and when it's premises are
shown to be false - not possibly false but absolutely false, religions react by
digging in, rather than "Oh, well, ok, that's not true."

++So here are some things to think about. If the
christian god is omnipotent, all knowing, knows the number of hairs on your
head, knew you before you were born, has a plan for your life and knows the
hour of your birth and death - as is stated in 1Timothy - how do you have free
will? If god knows in advance what you will do in your life, how is it possible
to go against god? And, if god already knows what you'll do and what you do is
part of this plan, what is the point of punishment?

To make this more real,
imagine you have a child you love to the core of yourself. Your goal as a
loving parent is to guide that child so it becomes a good, kind, productive
person. This is what christians suggest is god's will, yes? So then what would
your child that you love have to do in order for you to lock it in a basement
and torture it for all eternity? And you do not have the advantage of knowing
in advance your child might "sin."

Otherwise, many people say one cannot be moral without religion. My question is
this: what is moral about a person who cannot be moral except because there is
a threat of death hanging over them? If we're speaking biologically, and we can
support this with years and years of research with not only animals but with
sociological research of culture and society - moral behaviour is ingrained. It
is innate and instinctual and core to societies and cultures surviving. The
idea of morality being impossible without religion does not play out in
reality. To quote Penn Gillette, the magician, when asked what stopped him from
raping and thieving all he wants as an atheist, "I do rape and thieve all
I want, and all I want is none." The bible itself is not by any definition
a source of morals. One need only read the Levitican laws to know following
them would be fully, undeniably immoral. I am sure we agree taking one's unruly
child to the city gates to have the citizens stone it is not a moral act, nor
is doing what the voices in one's head tell one, up to the point where one
straps down one's son with a goal of slitting his throat as a sacrifice to an
invisible man...

We also know by innate morality it is NOT moral to
rape a female and by that force her to marry her rapist, but that is a
prescribed method of wife-getting in the bible. We also know slavery is
horrific, immoral and inescuseable, but not only are the rules for how to keep
slaves, where to get them and what to do if you beat your slave to death laid
out in the old testament, they are reiterated by the jesus character in the new
testament.... and why did the kid have to come fix the errors of his perfect,
omniscient "father?" So. there you have it. I have less to write
about other religions because I have nearly zero experience with them. Beyond
that islam derives from christianity - as in it is a younger religion with the
hallmarks of a schism from christianity, including acknowledging
"jesus" it is decisively a violent religion with a goal of
irradiating non-muslims and coercing existing muslims to a narrow
interpretation of life, or killing them if they don't comply.

Sorry about all the spelling errors.. I was typing
pretty quickly.

DE

God sends challenges. (WHAT?)God gave free will. ++ How your
life goes is purely your choice. God sends things and how you deal with it is
your choice which ultimately leads to how you live and where you places your
denomination. I was an atheist at one point..(I don't think so) then a feeling which I can't
really explain came over me and from then I found Jesus..ive found a church and
I've been baptized. Since I gave myself to Jesus, everything changed.

People
look to "facts" which really, are just opinions..all opinions, some
say God is man made and we created him in our image. Its all how you as a
person perceive things.

To me, Jesus is very real and his is alive and he died
me for me. You say the gospels were written by several people? Did these people
know each other? Was it all written over a pint? Don't think so..clearly there
is truth to it..we're unable to get eyewitness accounts..so its all down to
faith, prayer and what you feel within. (Cue confirmation this person has absolutely no background on the bible and how it was written: over 1500 years, three continents and who knows how many people).

ME

Danny, go back and read what I wrote. I answered this
"challenges" thing in detail. No, opinions are not facts. Facts are
supported by evidence. Opinions are usually not.

##Question: which god? How did
you determine you have the right god, when there are many to choose from. So,
given the facts I presented you here, how do you logically ignore them? Why is
your god correct and Shiva not? Or thor? What is the evidence you base your
choice on? I'd really like you to answer these four questions.

DE

I believe in the God that presented himself to me..
God the father, God the son and the holy spirit. And no amount of man made
facts, opinions, whatever will shake my faith. For whatever reason your faith
was shaken. (This is the place I knew there was no debate gonna happen. The second someone says nothing will shake their faith is the second you know you're not speaking with a rational person).

ME

So here's the problem with your statement above here:
You engaged on the basis of a debate. Debates rely on facts and substantiation.
If you refuse to entertain any facts, logic, evidence, support, proof, then you
do not want a debate. HOW did this god present itself to you? HOW do you know
it is the god described by christians not Krishna?
HOW do you know? Why are you right and Hindus are wrong? I'm curious: Has this
new church of yours charged you to go out and "win hearts for
christ?"

DE

##I'm not bringing other denominations into this. He
presented himself to me with a wonderful warm and almost indescribable feeling (some people say the same about peeing themselves).

I knew straight away who it was and what it meant. My proof is my faith and I
tell you ever since I found him I've been smiling like I found gold because he
touched my heart and warmed my soul. And yes my girlfriend now attends service
as does her father and step mom. Aha!

ME

So how do you know that warm wonderful feeling came
from the christian god? HOW do you know which god "touched" you? To
say you know by faith is to claim to know something you not only do not know,
you cannot know. I understand you're happy, and your experience is exactly that
of ANY religious convert. But this experience of your does NOT confirm which
"god" So I ask you again, HOW do you KNOW which god you're claiming
to know.

I will remind you again, YOU said you wanted a debate.
You can't now back out and refuse to debate because the information is
uncomfortable. Seriously. You're not an idiot. Are you really telling me you
don't care at all about facts and evidence? Are you really saying to me despite
things that cannot be true, you're still going here?

ME

Because that's not a rational choice: that's buying in
to group-think and to the feeling of the community you've got at a church. But
what they're selling you - does it matter at all to you there is no evidence
for it? Are youeally saying facts do not matter to you?

DE

I thought you said there was no evidence? What
evidence do you speak of? (What I didn't know here, but which was revealed later, is this person didn't read ANYTHING I wrote above).

DE

Tell me..if I gave you the most compelling, most
beautiful testimony ever...would it change your mind? Would you accept it and
not try to shoot it down?

DE

Did you accept the conversation because you're
actually searching for answers? Or just because you wanted to try to make me
atheist (This was my "holy shit" moment... I'm not sure why this person figures I'm "searching for answers" or trying to make them an atheist. I made it clear in my first comment I am atheist. This is just such a weird moment, but it was where it really started to smack of church-speak).

ME

I just spent 45 minutes presenting you information.
Did you read it?

DE

No, im packing as I said. Regardless of the essays, we
may always see differently

ME

First of all, You approached me. You don't get to
suggest I have an agenda. You asked me a couple questions and I gave you a very
comprehensive answer.

Because I can tell you exactly how this is going to
go. I've asked you three or four very specific questions here and you have not
only ignored those, you have ignored my very long, comprehensive information
above.

That is not fair. Faith is NOT evidence. It is based on nothing and it
makes claims to knowledge it cannot have.

And you wrote too many facts I didn't bother reading
it because you to were ignoring my faith.

All I asked why you dropped god.
Did not need all these facts that too are just here's say. (I answered that in my second comment above).

ME

I asked you some questions. There is no suggestion in
them to change anything. I'm trying to understand how you KNOW what you say you
know.

What you're doing is called a logical fallacy - and the fallacy you're
committing right now is called "moving the goalposts." It consists of
you making claims, me asking for clarification of those claims and you not
providing clarification AND proposing another question or subject to remove
yourself from having to substantiate what claims you made.

I removed a section here about my background - long, evangelical, generations of it. Boring, and if you've been here before, you know this.

DE

You're asking for proof that obviously doesn't matter
to you anyway (this is a common tactic with the religious - it translates to "I have proof but I'm not going to give it up because you're an asshole).

I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. We
might as well be arguing that red is black, we're going to get nowhere so to be
honest..this is completely pointless. Yes facts matter to me..and I listen to
both sides but my faith will never be broken. (So no, facts do not matter).

ME

No, I am not asking for proof. Pretend I'm a
devout muslim. Now convince me YOUR god is the right one.
Seriously. If you can't address this, you have a problem. You cannot say facts
matter at the same time as you claim your "faith" will never be
broken. If facts do matter to you, then go back and READ what I spend nearly an
hour writing. The FACTS prove beyond ANY doubt NONE of the characters you say
you believe in CAN or ever did exist. (This is where I become a bit touchy... )
May I caution you to not invite people to debate you when you have no intention
of debating. It is dishonest to make such an approach, refuse all facts put to
you, suggest your testimony will shift someone away from fact and then claim
the discussion YOU invited is pointless when the facts put to you entirely
contradict your unfounded, and unsubstantiated beliefs.You're welcome to believe whatever you wish but you are not welcome to
dishonestly engage in "debate," when your goal, which is now very
obvious, is to take someone's time - which in my case was given quite freely -
refuse to acknowledge ANY points put to you, refuse to substantiate your claims
and then retreat with the ridiculous "nothing can shift me." It is
not intelligent.
I realise you are presently in the excitement phase of being a new christian -
been there, done that, seen it a hundred times. But at some point you either
entirely give up being a rational thinker or you WILL have to confront the
points put to you, starting with HOW do you KNOW this god of yours is the
christian god and not Shiva or Thor or Zeus or the Great Juju in the sea. If
you can't answer that very fundamental question - how do you know - then you
cannot expect anyone to consider you credible.

So tell me again how exactly this emotional experience
you had is for SURE the christian god "touching" you and not some
other god.

And tell me again how, despite the facts put to you -
DNA, genetics, biology, history, archaeology and science are all wrong and your
"faith" overrides all that evidence.

(And now the wife-to-be jumps in...)

DE/NE

K this ends now. I am NE, DE's soon to be [spouse. They were] NOT DEBATING ... just asking one stupid question about why you
changed from god that is all. You DID,NOT need to blow up with [them].

ME

(I'm still speaking to the initial poster here... And I'll wager you are angry at the moment and you
think I'm quite mean for having put these questions to you and for having
presented you quite a bit of information. (this is going to play out shortly)

This is called cognitive dissonance
and it happens when information - in this case rational, logical information
directly contradicts something you believe. It results in the person feeling
VERY uncomfortable - usually really angry - which they sort by saying the other
person is doesn't have an open mind, or, as you put it above here, won't accept
the proof you could offer, so you won't bother. all that only serves to get you
an out from having to substantiate these claims.

DE/NE

These stupid facts about this crap just stop cuz you
are upsetting ... and pissing me off. No offense. Believe what you want. I
don't care facts aren't always right but faith is (church-speak 2.0)

ME

Hello NE. DE engaged me in this conversation. This
is his opening post: "I know we haven't spoken in a very long time. I was
just curious..you're religious, yes? I'm in search of someone to have a a
theological debate with..if you're interested."

As they point out, we haven't spoken in a very long
time. They said they wanted a theological debate. I thought that was an honest
approach but it seems it was not a debate they were after; it was an opportunity
for conversion. You're more than welcome to read this entire thread and I hope
very much you will, and then I hope you two will engage in some honest
discussion between the two of you.

DE/NE have been reading the whole time. And your points I
do not like and I'll it again DE was not debating he has strong faith in his
god WHICH is evidence ... doesn't need to be to you.

Facts are not always
justified. I know the lord is real yet im not 100% committed I see and feel him
in my own way DE never once said you were wrong but you are soo damn
judgmental. (um what? Since when is posting information and asking questions judgemental? Oh... when the cognitive dissonance kicks in. Right).

And saying what DE thinks is wrong or can't exist. This
conversation stops now and I mean it. Sorry for the rudeness but you are
upsetting DE and I protect those I love. Good byw

ME

GREAT.
WHICH god? HOW do you know the "Lord" is real?

I am judgemental about
someone who engages dishonestly, yes.

THE FACTS say what you believe
cannot exist. I did not say this. I am quoting facts and referencing science,
history, archaeology and logic.

It
is rude and dishonest to engage a near stranger in a "debate," when
you have absolutely no intention of debating and every intention of
proselyting.

So you both know, I have copied this entire conversation and will
be posting it to my blog, as I always do with these types of
"conversations." Neither of you will be identified in any way, and
my blog does not identify me, although many people who read it know I am the
writer. The reason I post these conversations is to point out the flaws in
these religious arguments - and particularly the refusal to read, let alone
consider the facts.

May I say how really despicable it is to engage someone
like this, and then resort to name calling.

DE/NE

What you have quoted are not facts its called being
too damn opinionated. Just drop this and stop replying like I asked because I
am getting mad (cognitive dissonance, with the effect I noted would occur). and I do not like being disrespectful to older people.

Facts
facts facts can only get you so fair in life... faith love gets you everywhere.
And you are not allowed you post this without consent. (Yes, I can)DE wasnt debating just
one simple question and you ran over with atheist opinion (or a bunch of facts) Now please stop.
And better not post this because its against the law without him saying its
okie (nope, it isn't. And that's "Okay," by the way).

Nope.
Facts. It's not my opinon there is not only no evidence for your god or any
god, nor is it my opinion there is no evidence at all for christ and proof that
adam and eve did not and could not have existed. I told you, Danny. Cognitive
dissonance. You engaged ME. YOU said YOU wanted a theological debate. A debate
is not what you're doing here.

DE/NE

All im saying now is enough please. And dont you dare post this personal crap on your blog

because thats stirring up trouble with he nor I need.

ME

I am going to post it. You
will not be identified in ANY way. Not city, not gender not work. Nothing.

DE/NE

I gave my views, you gave yours. You've been told many times that this is done now. I wanted a nice conversation where both sides could be seen..not you attacking me for having a god that you chose to leave (oooohhh nice attack!)

Does not matter its DE's words meaning DE has rights and you cannot post what DE as said NOT ANY OF IT. Post your parts but not DE's.

ME

I am NOT attacking you. I am pointing out the flaws in yoru
argument and the fact you can't substantiate your claims. ANY time you want to
substantiate your claims, you're more than welcome. I can absolutely post it
and I will. It will not identify you in any way.

DE/NE

I've gave MY POINTS! I BELIEVE BECAUSE HE CAME TO ME!
JUST AS HE ONCE CAME TO YOU (Church-speak)

Again
DE's words meaning you cannot not because you have no consent grow up please and
learn the rights and laws... you can post what you say yes but not DE's

You
chose to leave..its because of people like you that my faith and love for him
only grows stronger (I'm not sure even what this is supposed to mean, but it's church-speak)

DE/NE

I don't have to hide my believes..and I don't call
people out for worshipping a different God to me. That's their choice..who am I
to tell them any different? Who am I to say they're wrong?

Regardless of beliefs, they're my fellow man..and all
I can do is love them and look,after them as best I can until we're all called
home (except for the atheists who ask questions that make you uncomfortable, I assume?)

This is called a personal conversation and you are
very rude for saying your gonna post this. Post what you say and believe but
dont you dare post his even tho you take DE's name off. It is still wrong.

And whether you once had Jesus..whether you're still
trying to find him or whether you cast him away from you..he loves you and
always will (oh for shit's sake..... )

ME

HOW do you KNOW? Did you see this person? IF you're
relying on a feeling, then you don't have any solid reason to know. Feelings
are not reliable and they are certainly not evidence. Please don't presume my
experience. I was raised in that environment. I did not choose it.

DE/NE

I was as well I was forced to believe. As I grew up I
did not want to follow it. But I do know its real just because you dont doesn't
mean it isn't (wow. Stunning logic... also known as drowning)

You always have a choice! That's the point! You chose
to leave..not because as I can work out because you felt forced but because
your apparent facts (yeah, "apparent" facts) told you otherwise. How would your eleven generations feel
about your sudden atheism? (They don't like it. So what?)

ME (still trying to get this person to understand they cannot confirm which god they're talking about...)Exactly. Who are you to say they're wrong. But how do
you know YOU are right and they are not??

What if you ARE wrong and Allah is the right god? HOW
do you know you've made the right choice? How do you substantiate there is such
a thing as what you call "home?" You do understand you can see fully
400 GALAXIES with your naked eye? If earth is a tiny, tiny, tiny planet on a
tiny arm of a tiny galaxy in a tiny part of the cosmos and there are 400
galaxies viewable and all of those could potentially have planets like this
one, WHERE is your "heaven"?

DE/NE
Heaven is not of this world..as Jesus said he is not of this world. Heaven is
Gods home, beyond our known universe. (Church-speak spoken by someone who has no science to speak of).

ME

The facts are these and these are NOT opinion. DNA
proves the adam eve story cannot be true. DNA also proves the noah story cannot
be true. History, archaeology and the 48 historians alive and writing at the
time jesus was supposed to have lived provide NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that person
ever lived. History and archaeolgy DO substantiate the Council of Nicea has a
very specific, written-down agenda that included erradicating the jewish
population of the time - and having a dead messiah - which They MADE UP - was a
great tool.

DE/NE

I believe what my heart knows is real. And I know you
are pushing and pushing to say what you say is apparently right. But who are
you to say you are right huh??? JUST YOU. But that's you I am not telling you
what to think or say or believe but I know you arw now being a bully and
attacking because we are rebelling your thoughts but we arw who we are grow up
and deal with it and stop replying if your really mature

ME (Stunned by that writer's really bad grammar and sentence structrure. WHY is it always the uneducated who fall for religion. I know; rhetorical).

Again, that's nice but it's not evidence.

I said syop replying

Do you not understand

Dont reply

ME

Hindus also believe with their hearts as do muslims
and zoroastrians and mormons. NOT evidence.

I'm not attacking. I am asking you to substantiate
your claims here. I am also pointing out feelings are not evidence. Neither of
those is an attack.

DE/NE

Jeez... I guess english doesnt get threw (sic) to you... ma
am I have said enough drop it is that too hard or what

ME

if you're going to engage someone who made it
very clear in my FIRST post back to you is an ATHEIST, then do not be surprised
when you get yourself deep into stuff you haven't thought about.

But I'd sure love to hear this heartfelt testimony
that will convert me.

DE

If you reply you will be blocked. Have a good life
apparently you have without him. Piss off

And thus concludes a lesson in what happens when people join churches, get all warm and fuzzy up in there, take on what seems to be a church challenge to go find a non-believer and hit 'em up.

It's called cognitive dissonance and it results in a high level of discomfort when what one believes is shown to be crap. Usually results in anger and very often in insults, screaming and yelling and stomping about, kinda like what happened here.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

You won't be surprised to know I've engaged in yet another "conversation" with people who seem not to like logic or facts.

Despite the discussion having launched over this (IMO) really exploitive and non-scientific (that part isn't my opinion) book, it rapidly went to "everyone has the right to their beliefs."

I will ask you right now, dear reader, to think for a second what that statement really means. EVERYONE. Has the RIGHT to their BELIEFS. EVERYONE necessarily, then, includes every crazy person who as done any horrifying, terrifying, brutal, murderous thing because of their beliefs. Everyone. Parents who choose prayer over medicine and allow their children to die whilst waiting for 'god'; men who stone to death the women they have raped, and cut the hands of starving cildren accused of theft when they attempt to feed themselves, because their prophet says it is the right thing to do; priests who rape children.... EVERYONE

However, there was, later, a pronouncement that I did NOT have the right to my beliefs - pink unicorns, for which there are many drawings and stories and even effigies and images - because MY beliefs are insulting, rude and assaultive. Hm. So NOT everyone.

I've cleaned up the grammatical and spelling errors everywhere (that I noticed them).

JKshared a video.

SKI read the book about all of the
things this little boy saw. There's no way I could deny life after our time on
earth. Such an amazing thing we have is knowledge of god and that there's
someone looking out for us.

MEYeah, except for the extensive, faulty
premises and the idea of relying on a child's experience in a coma. There is
NOTHING the least scientific in this disaster.

I could write a book on how appalling and manipulative and unscientific and
frankly garbage this book/movie is.

SKYou have
your beliefs, and I have mine. (well, no, I have evidence the writer
ignored good science, which is not a belief) That's what is great about
this world! I don't need scientific facts to prove to me that god is real (oh
dear...). I have faith. If you need science to believe in things then
that is totally fine! But as for me, sometimes I believe in things that science
can't explain, and it's helped me see life in a beautiful way. If you're
beliefs make you happy, that is awesome! But mine make me happy too, and that's
also awesome! :) (1. what things can't science explain, or at least make a decent stab at explaining? 2. Atheists do not have beliefs. A-theism is "without beliefs" or without gods. Our sole premise the lack of evidence for any god(s) makes bowing down to it/them ridiculous. 3. Heroin, which also helps people believe in things that aren't real, also makes some people very happy, and like religion, addicted and dependent)

MESo, if I have faith I will see a pink
unicorn this year, real, true faith, you say that is fine and normal?

JKI would
appreciate if you guys don't do this kind of insulting/antagonistic debating on
my page. (Ok, so I am not allowed to clarify this person's statement. Got it. Also, that is bullshit)

I respect all beliefs and I would appreciate anyone choosing to
comment on my posts have the same courtesy for each other...or don't post (Bullshit this person respects all beliefs! BULLSHIT. IF that were true, this person would be on the front line of protesting their country's contribution to 10 years of US invasion in the Middle East. The second part of this post - the "please shut up" part really means "sure as hell don't ask anyone if they really do mean ALL beliefs when they SAY all beliefs").

I'm
not saying anything about whether its right, wrong, true or untrue. It looks
like an interesting film and could be very positively inspiring to many in a
day and age that hope is hard to come by. Take it all for what you will, but
please don't be antagonistic. Thank you.

(I just want to point out here that I
have been asking questions up to this point, with the exception of my pointed
statement about the film, which I followed with a review of the film. This
allegation I'm insulting and antagonistic and rude continues as does this
suggestion I "have to be right." It is ridiculous. I am trying to
understand these people and their position on "live and let live" by
asking what they mean and how what they mean applies.)

SKWhy does it matter so much that you
have to be right and I have to be wrong? We both have different opinions about
religion and faith. Who cares? You don't have to be right. I'm not wrong,
you're not wrong. Let's leave it at that.(Um. when did this I'm right, you're wrong thing happen, exactly? Oh... right now... I see)

MEExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (In
case it isn't obvious to all, this is a statement and it is not aimed at
anyone, and doesn't criticize anyone)

JKFor you they do, and that's
fine....for others they do not.

MEExtraordinary
claims always require extraordinary evidence or they have absolutely no
credibility. (sorry, I personified...)

This particular book - its story and contents have been scrutinized
- properly - with the lens of neuroscience and have come up severely lacking. I
appreciate this story makes people feel good - but so does chocolate, which is
also dangerous if over-consumed.

The phenomenon of people "seeing heaven"
as a result of major trauma is world wide. HOWEVER, the visions people have in
that state are decidedly NOT uniform; they are heavily dependent on the
person's culture, religion (if they have one) and ethnicity.

If THIS particular heaven did exist, then those experiences
would necessarily be uniform and there would be mass shifts in people's
religions. This is not the case.

The simple fact these experiences differ
specifically along religious paradigms must be enough for an intelligent person
to question the validity of such a story.

(Sorry for again pointing out the
obvious, but I am making a statement here, again, not aimed at anyone in
particular - although obviously for the consumption of those participating - and
am not making a criticism of anyone. I am making points about the film and what
it seeks to say)

MEBut, if
extraordinary claims do NOT require evidence, then we are free to make any
claim at all and expect others to accept that claim - and to see any questions
about such a claim as "antagonistic?" I don't think so. If that's the
case, then we must accept ever crazy serial killer who claims "god"
spoke to them and they were just doing "god's" bidding.

Either all extraordinary claims require evidence or
our judicial system is a complete failure.

JKWell, I don't
know how it is in Canada
but the US Judicial system is kind of a complete failure (just sayin'). I
appreciate what you have to say. And I appreciate the references. I am genuinely
intrigued by this sort of thing because it is very interesting, I have seen
documentaries about children "remembering past lives" also which is
another odd phenomenon that occurs quite frequently...is it true? Who the hell
knows! (um....neuroscientists?... )

Is it interesting? You betcha!But I don't appreciate the blatant attack on an
individual's level of intelligence just because they don't agree with what you
are saying or the research you are providing as reference though... (I
was substantiating THEIR statement with that link.... not everyone reading,
myself included, was familiar with this alleged mathematical "proof"
of god) so can we please ease off that particular tone?

(WHAT
blatant attack on WHICH individual??? WHEN did I mention ANYONE'S intelligence??
I just used my word processor's "find" option and there is no mention
of "intelligence" anywhere before this poster writes the word and
makes the allegation. I SAID, "The simple fact these experiences differ specifically along religious paradigms must MUST BE ENOUGH FOR AN INTELLIGENT PERSON TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A STORY)

MENo, it is
not true. There is endless science - good, fact-based, falsifiable, verifiable,
observable, repeatable science on both these subjects. One (One. Not you. ONE; general) need only have the courage to expose
their "beliefs" to research and knowledge.

As for faith, it is simply a way of claiming to know
things one cannot know, and to bring that even further, once one DOES know a
thing, one no longer has faith; one has evidence. (Yes, this is direct. But direct does not mean wrong, nor does it mean offensive)

As I say, I appreciate stories like this make people
feel all warm and fuzzy but that does not mean such stories are true. Again,
there is a LOT of reviews of this book, from a "christian"
standpoint, where there is no analysis AND a rejection of science, and
neuroscience specifically, and a rejection of the FACT that people from other
religious paradigms have experiences that "prove" their version of
"heaven" is true, when that version bears no relation at all to the
versions that appear in American culture.

It is the only logical stance one can have, as a thinking person, to acknowledge there is no way
"proof" of "heaven" experienced by a muslim person or a buddhist
person or a christian person can all be true.

I made no "blatant attack" on anyone's
intelligence. I don't care whether anyone agrees or not. My point is one - anyone, nobody in particular -
must be intelligent enough to acknowledge all religions and all these
experiences people claim to be true and to be proof of their version of heaven
cannot actually be true.

I asked a valid question up there. If we must accept
other people's faith, then people must accept mine - that there are pink unicorns,
and I am sure of this because I feel it, I have seen pictures of them and read
stories of them and I know in my heart they are real. My faith cannot be
attacked either, because faith somehow sits outside intelligence and to ask any
questions that might rock my faith are to blatantly attack me.

Right? (later, someone threw this example back at me as being rude and in their face.... Oh, hello wall, meet back)

CRGödel’s Ontological Proof.

This is mathematical proof that God exists. German mathematician Kurt Gödel
proposed this theory that a higher power must exist. Christoph Benzmüller and
Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo have proven that Gödel’s theory is mathematically
correct. There for it is a scientifically provable fact.

JKOh Hell (exasperated sigh).....you two
have fun with this....

CRNo I
believe the argument has ended before it begins. I accept her belief in
science. (Just so it is clear, one does not "believe" in science. One
can rely on science becasuse science specifically seeks to DISprove itself. The
goal of all scientific research is to find the holes in current understandings
in order that scientific understanding can improve. This is not what belief is.
Belief exists regardless of fact and contrary to fact)

I have presented a provable scientific theory that supports both of our
beliefs and the only way to argue that would be for her to go against her
beliefs and claimscience doesn't matter or to provide me with a provable
mathematical and scientific theory that God does not exist. But like her belief
about God that theory doesn't exist.

Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel. But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the example it sets of how computers can make scientific progress simpler.

This is ontological "proof," that does not address WHICH god, nor
does it provide a means to disprove all the 4000 or so "gods"
proposed by humans.

(Just to simplify, this mathematical
theory does not prove 'god' exists necessarily. It would be more apt to say
'gods,' plural. There is a clue in "formalised a theorem...".)

CRSorry Julie but I will not debate you
for no amount of proof would be sufficient and for me no amount of proof is
needed.

MEI wasn't inviting you to debate. I
posted background on your proposal.

But, as you've brought up science, which seeks to disprove itself in order to
better its theories, it seems inappropriate to say you need no proof to support
your position. Falsifiability is core to good science. Anything else is simply
pretending to know things one cannot know.

SKLook, the
bottom line is we all believe different things. Julie, if you believe in a pink
unicorn, go right ahead! I appreciate your opinion but I stated mine as well. I
don't care if you think you're right, I don't care what science says. (This
is very sad in 2013/2014)

To me, I'veexperienced things that make it so I could/would never
deny God or life after our life on earth ends. If I believe stories like this
like many others do, leave us be! We all have beliefs. Like I said earlier,
let's leave it at that!

(Just to clarify the definition of what a miracle is:

A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.[1]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say there is NO possibility this person's experiences of "things that make it so I could/would never deny god or life after our life on earth ends," qualify as "Not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature," and ARE, consequently, easily attributed to HUMAN intervention and help.)

MEWell, I'd
leave it alone if "leave us be" didn't also apply to those who
believe it is right to stone a woman to death for the crime of being raped, or
to those who believe it is right to mutilate little girls' genitals, or to
those who believe it is right to pray over their sick and dying children rather
than take them to the doctor, or to those who believe it is right to forcibly
marry off girls to men who already have five or eight other wives AND kick the
young boys out of the colony to fend for themselves rather than those boys
being competition to group abuse and child rape.

Do you really believe "let them be" should
also apply to people who hurt, abuse and kill others when their reason is
"god" said it is right?

MEAnd for the
record, I would absolutely accept the proof of god - any of them - doing what
it/he/she is alleged to be able to do and rearranging the stars into a pattern
that says "I am your god."

JKOkay...I am
putting my foot down. Enough is enough. Back down. Julie you are bringing up so
many completely unrelated topics its is ridiculous. (Which topics are unrelated? I've
been asking questions and responding to what others have written).

There are heinous issues with our world today and the people in
it. That is not being disputed. Nor is it being disputed that many people do
horrible things in the name of "God(s)"...but that is NOT the root of
what this film or book is trying to give people. It is a message of hope.
Nothing more.

Stop turning anything spiritually based and intriguing that I may post onto MY
TIMELINE into a "pro-heinous
religious acts" accusation (Well,
actually, I ASKED if these people actually believe what they are saying, when
they say everyone has the right to believe what they will. I didn't accuse
anyone of anything; I asked them to clarify what they meant. I do realise this
is the portion of the program where they have got themselves uncomfortably
lodged up against a corner....) on my page. None of us (that have
spoken on this thread) are supporting those things and I'd appreciate it if you
all knock it off....

MEAs always, I am bemused by the
termination of this subject when the realities of "Live and let live"
invade.

JKIts being terminated because Im now
annoyed at the fact that you won't just get off it. You all believe
differently. Just get off it already and leave the goddamned bone alone.

I'm not
happy to argue but I AM very put off by being told to shut up when my
well-researched opinions happen not to be popular.

I
appreciate you weren't looking for a discussion. However, discussions are
important, particularly when the subject at hand has a very solid, scientific
explanation. It is not intelligent to shut down a discussion because the
information is counter to what one currently possesses.

JKI will take a look at that. I don't have a problem
with your well thought out research. I do have a problem that you were actively
on the war path and determined to fight.

Sometimes
its best to just back off. (AKA, shut up when you make points that
shine a light on the posters' inability to support their arguments).

I dont always post things for discussion. And I appreciate it if people
would take the hint and "be nice" when I ask nicely...the first
time...

I didnt
mean to be as harsh as I was...but you kinda walked right into it by willfully
refusing to ease up.... (Pretty sure -
almost positive - the other parties in this discussion did NOT get the same
message).

You know
me well enough now to know that I am always open to a private message
conversation (I've highlighted this because it becomes important shortly)
about such things, nothing irritates me more than public comments that are
easily misinterpreted as aggressive and confrontational...because , as youve
seen, it turns into arguments.

MEWhy is it a
"warpath" or a "fight" when someone like me, with a
lifetime of engagement in an evangelical family, spends more than seven years
understanding that paradigm, comes to a very researched and substantiated
conclusion that paradigm and all others like it are false, and on that wealth
of experience and research, asks a person making a statement to substantiate
what they've said?

Here's the
thing JK: no person should "ease up" when they see information that
is FALSE being presented as true.

I know
you. I know you would NOT stand by or ease up in the face of something you know
was wrong.

JKI post things that are interesting to me onto
my wall, as is my right, I in no way say I believe every single thing 100%. (Ok,
so why so disturbed by the conversation?)

They are posted to help inspire and promote positive thinking and
positive action....not to destroy positive sentiment and belief in things that
cannot be proven...that is not my cause to champion and I would appreciate it
if you stop practically accusing "spiritual & religious based"
ites (sic.. I don't know what word goes here) as somehow being blaketedly (sic)
supporting of all the heinous things done in the name of religion and God....
and just because we cannot prove something now is a weak argument...it doesn't
make things untrue, it means we cannot prove it to our knowledge right at this
moment in time...that is all....

(Except that neuroscience has excellent,
science-based, observable theories for what happens in an NDE and why those
vary so widely, dependent on culture, language and religion). There was
once a time when using leeches and bleeding people was
"scientifically" supported as the best way to treat certain
illnesses....we NOW know differently....

JK....so yeah....Im sorry if I upset you with
how I shut down the conversation....but Im so done with that whole conversation....

MEFine. But if they're posted
publicly, you might anticipate comments.

I did NOT
accuse anyone of blanketly "supporting of all the heinous things done in
the name of religion and God."

I ASKED
them if they REALLY believe that statement (the one about "everyone has
the right to their beliefs).

One cannot
say, "live and let live," but engage in wars, or call out parents who
allow their children to die (by relying on prayer) rather than
seek medical attention.

I asked
your poster to state whether he/she ACTUALLY meant what they said - because I
KNOW, if they really thought about it, they do NOT. What they mean is
"don't point out the fallacies of my statements; it pisses me off."

By the
way, leeches are still used, very successfully, in many hospitals to treat
flesh that has necrotised. Leeches are a common treatment for people suffering
diabetes and whose skin tends to die off. Leeches are very effective in
removing the dead flesh and, thanks to their saliva, very effectively and in a
sterile manner, keep the wound from bleeding.

JKDude...you are drawing so many false
conclusions from everything they said...

they
simply were saying they DO believe in a God....THAT IS ALL....the fact that you
feel its your right to railroad people that matter to me all because they
believe in a God is what pisses me off (I don't "feel it is my right to
railroad people... because they believe in god," but I do KNOW it is my
responsibility to ask questions when people say things that will lead them to a
much different logical conclusion than they mean, if they were to actually
THINK about what they said/wrote)

METhere are some really
excellent researched, peer-reviewed articles on the phenomenon of near death
experiences (NDE).

There are
also some very good reviews of that book - those reviewing it from a scientific
standpoint and from an ethical standpoint where it concerns capitalising on the
experience of a four-year-old who, seven years previously, had a pretty
significant medical event.

MEI'm not drawing ANY
conclusions. None of my questions were answered.

JKand no, leeches are not effective treatment
for 90% of the ailments we USED TO use them to treat....so that counterargument
you present is splitting hairs and a weak argument at best

MEI have no issue with their
belief in god. I have an issue with people having no means of substantiating
"god" and being angry when someone says, "How did you come to
that conclusion?

I also have a big issue with
people who say everyone has the right to their beliefs but won't follow that
through to the logical conclusion, which, in our recent past, (referring to
9/11) MUST include very religious people who are convinced of their version of
heaven, flying airplanes into buildings.

Answer
this: If it is true we all have the right to our beliefs, then why the hell is
the US still in the Middle East and why the hell is TSA presuming we are all
terrorists?

If one has
the right to their beliefs, then we cannot, to use your term, split hairs:
either beliefs are without consequence or they are not.

JKbut ultimately Julie I feel like you are hell
bent on a fight. I really dont have time or energy for this. . . AND further
more...I DO NOT post them publically. I post them only so my "friends"
can see them if they so choose to subscribe to me. I do anticipate
comments...not harsh debates and blatant attacks on what is clearly intended to
be a positive thing.... (well, I am an accepted "friend"
of this poster, so um, they might expect comments on that basis)

MEI'm not bent on a fight but
I am very interested in statements being followed to their logical conclusion.

JKNo....it is pretty clear you aren't just bent
on a fight but "Hell-bent" on one.... (Ok... has devolve to ad hominem, meaning now going after my character and my motivations - which is to say presuming motivation - rather than sticking to the points of the discussion... but back against the wall requires alternative measures, apparently)

MEI realise this is a
difficult subject for you, JK. I get it. But difficulty aside, as you are not
unintelligent or dishonest, you must at least think about what it all means.

I realise
there is pushback from some of your friends and family but that isn't any real,
or honest, impediment to really understanding what it means to say "we all
have the right to our beliefs." I say it is critical to understand why
that simply is not right and cannot be right.

If it is
right, there are sure a lot of dead American soldiers fighting against people
who should, by that statement, have the right to their beliefs.

MEDo you understand why this
is important?

JKThey have a right to believe in God....that
is ALL that was said or implied...really bottom line. That's all anyone is
saying. You are giving far too much implication to their words where NOTHING
was actually said to support those accusation. They can believe

(Ok.
I'm frustrated now. Belief in 'god,' whichever one chooses to believe in, is
usually not a benign thing, and when it is, the people who have such benign
beliefs call themselves "spiritual." For most people, belief in 'god'
comes with a certain code and dogma, so that belief is not "all.")

MEYes, you do. (I
meant "they")

So do
those members of the Taliban. They believe in what they want. It does hurt
people.

So do
people who are prayer-only fundamentalists; their children die. Does their
right to their beliefs override morality?

JKIts not their BELIEF that hurts people....its
what they DO about it. TWO completely different things. People can believe in a
God and have all kinds of "logical conclusions" and not all of them
are bad....you are just hyper focusing on those people who DO bad things in the
name of their God....even in spite of it, they still have the right to believe
it....not so cool for them to act on it the way they CHOOSE to....

MELike I say, I realise this
is an immensely challenging subject and I am not a stranger at all to your
point of view. I was once a very believing person who was challenged and was
hell bent on proving non-believers wrong. I get it. I was raised in that
environment and stayed in it voluntarily until I was 35. I am no stranger to
scripture. Not at all.

Ok. Let's
go there. It is not their belief that hurts people, it's what they do about it.
OK. How does one divorce themselves from their beliefs, if their belief is god
will heal their dying child. What action does that parent take?

JKthe problem isn't with believing in good
things...its when anyone becomes such an extremist about anything that they
become intolerant and cruel. (There's a veiled allegation here... I see it but I didn't rise to it, and this poster did not make the same suggestion to the other participants)

MEI agree.

It is not extreme
to ask questions. It IS extreme to be a prayer-based fundamentalist and allow
your child to die.

JKSo why the hell are you attacking people on
my wall for simply BELIEVING in something good and better than themselves?

NO ONE
SAID THEY DID THAT

WTH? NOR did ANYONE say they believe and support
that

MEWho did I attack? Please
will you copy and paste what I said that was an attack?

(One of the reasons I'm editing
and posting this conversation is to read through it again to see if/where I
actually did attack a specific person. So far, nope)

METhey said - and you have
said - people have the right to their beliefs.

Who does
that apply to? Just christians? Just muslims? Who?

JKEveryone! But a belief in something does not
mean someone has the ethic right to damage and destroy ourselves as a people
because of it. Ethics and religious beliefs are two different creatures

MEI absolutely agree with
that. Religious belief and morals have zero to do with each other.

So I'll
ask you this again: Does it apply to everyone that they have the right to their
beliefs?

JKYeas
everyone has the right to their BELIEF. "So, if I have faith I will see a
pink unicorn this year, real, true faith, you say that is fine and normal
?" (what??? How is my statement of belief in pink unicorns
an attack???)----very>

MEJK, you've just said people
have the right to believe what they will, and then posted here my belief in
pink unicorns is NOT ok and to state it is somehow an attack.

JKPeople of no ethical integrity have no right
to ACT on their beliefs (um, yeah, they do. Just because I don't
agree with another person's ethics or beliefs, doesn't mean I get to bring the
hammer down on those beliefs. OH/ WAIT!! This is EXACTLY the point I've been
trying to make with this person. HOLY CONTRADICTION, BATMAN!)

Because
you are being sarcastic and rude. I'm not saying you don't have a right to it. I'm
saying you are being an ass by throwing that in someone's face...just to
somehow prove your point....

(The poster is referring her to my belief in
pink unicorns and suggesting that my asking if I have the right to my beliefs
as per their "Live/Let live" statements).

MEOk. Everyone has the right
to their beliefs.

Some
muslim people really, truly, honestly believe they will see the kingdom of god
if they kill infidels. This is the foundation for the attacks in NYC.

Do those
people have a right to that belief?

Why is my
belief "rude"?

JKthe way you present it is rude....not the
belief itself

MEJK. C'mon. Seriously?

JKand hell yeah they have the right to believe
what they believe, its not my place or right to say they cant, it DOES NOT mean
they had any ethical right to act on it in the way they did. I don't believe
they should have DONE what they did. (So they DON'T have the right to their
beliefs??? THEY BELIEVE THE ATTACKS WERE GOD'S WILL. How do they divorce
themselves from their beliefs in this instance? This poster is completely
missing the logical dilemma they have walked themselves into.)

yeah
seriously

ME But they DO believe they were
doing their god's will.

If we say
everyone has the right to their beliefs, we cannot judge those acts by OUR
beliefs. Either your statement applies across the board or it doesn't

JKyour entire tone when you write is full of
insult and disdain that someone could even possibly believe in a god despite
all your "evidence" against it....its arrogant, and honestly that's
what has put me off the most. What right do you have to tell someone that their
innocent belief in something that makes them strive to be a better person is
somehow bad.

(At no point did I say any such thing. I believe this person is now spilling
something of their own)

MEI'm not telling anyone
anything, JK. I am ASKING QUESTIONS

JKsure you are....in a very aggressively
intolerant manner

MEI am asking you if you
really do believe everyone has the right to belief what they

JKto which I have answered you, but not in a
way you like

ME I'm sorry you are getting
aggression and intolerance. I'm having a really tough time understanding how
you mean for it to apply.

We cannot
say everyone has the right to their beliefs but sanction them when they do what
they think is right based on those beliefs.

JK I don't based on MY BELIEFS....I
base it off of an unrelated code of ethical conduct based upon the whole human
race finding a way to co-exist and thrive together....NOT based upon religion.

ME I KNOW you do. Which
is exactly what I meant when I said religion and morals have zero to do with
each other/.

MEI'm not sure why you understand me as being
intolerant when I'm just asking questions. I'm trying to understand how it
works to say everyone has the right to their beliefs when some of those beliefs
are frankly horrifying.

But what
do we do when someone really truly believes, based on their interpretation of
their holy book and the counsel of their religious leader, that it is right to
stone a woman to death for being the victim of a rape?

What do we
do then? They have the right to their beliefs and they really believe they are
doing the right thing - the moral thing - based on their dearly-held beliefs.
What do we do with that?

MEAnd
to be clear, we're not talking about you here. The subject is
"everyone," and yes, you're included but this is not specifically
about you or me.